Talk:A Course in Miracles/temp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Uncited OR #1

This has been moved to discussion until it can be sourced and cited

"It is written in Christian terminology, but some of the teachings of The Course are inconsistent with commonly-accepted Christian beliefs (see below). Forgiveness is its central teaching. The great majority of the book is now in the public domain (see below)."

...Ste4k 00:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • It says "(see below)" and is a summary of what appears below. If what is below is sourced and supports the statement, keep it. Otherwise, modify it. JChap (talk • contribs) 02:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree to that, it should have a [[#target|see below]] in it as well. The problem is, though, that this particular statement was included without supplying anything below, with a opaque edit summary, and removed a {{fact}} tag that was marking the entire section. And none of the comments made by the editor during or surrounding that time (16:05, 12 July 2006) have anything to do with Christian terminology nor forgiveness.
...Ste4k 21:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uncited statements #2

Moved to discussion until sources are cited.

"Schucman and Thetford became acquainted during their tenure as psychologists at Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York City. In the mid-1960s, Schucman told Thetford she was taking down a spiritual message she felt she was receiving from Jesus Christ. This material developed into the book. Both Schucman and Thetford and the text itself claim that the true author was the historical Jesus, and it is written in the first person, though authorship is not attributed in the published version and the original copyright claim filed for the book lists the author as "Anonymous".[citation needed] "

...Ste4k 00:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uncited statements #3

Moving this to discussion until sources are cited

In addition to the substance of the notes themselves, Schucman claims to have received instruction from the "Voice" that directed how the notes were to be processed and used. The "Voice" directed that Thetford was in charge of the editing. After completing the original full set of notes, sometimes known as the Urtext, Thetford and Schucman then edited, rearranged some of the material, and added chapter and section headings to it.[citation needed]

... Ste4k 00:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uncited Section #4

Moving these to discussion until they can be cited and sourced

The book was published and distributed between 1995 and 2000 by Penguin Books, but this appears to have ended with the dispute over copyright. The 1975 asserted copyright was finally voided in 2003 on the grounds of general distribution prior to obtaining copyright, thus placing it in the public domain. The previously registered Trademark on the acronymn, "ACIM" was cancelled by the US Trademark Office on 10/25/2005 and the previously registered Servicemark on the book title, "A Course in Miracles" was canceled by the US Trademark Office on 8/10/2005.[citation needed]

...Ste4k 00:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k has referred to this case many, many times. Why would she remove this section as unsourced? --Nscheffey(T/C) 05:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Because it's uncited and unsourced. If you can cite it, do so. If you are just looking it up and interpreting what you're reading, then that is pure original research. Ste4k 23:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uncited statements #5

Moving this to discussion until it can be cited

During the copyright litigation, three earlier editions surfaced. These are the Urtext edition, the Hugh Lynn Cayce edition, and the Criswell edition.[citation needed]

...Ste4k 00:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uncited statements #6

Moving this to discussion until it can be sourced and cited

[edit] Litigation

The 1975 copyright of "A Course in Miracles" was voided by Federal District court judge Robert W. Sweet for the U.S. Federal District Court in the Southern District of New York on 10/24/2003 on the grounds of general distribution prior to obtaining copyright thus placing it in the public domain, as Amended on 6/16/2004. The previously registered Service-mark on the book title, "A Course in Miracles" was canceled by the US Trademark Office on 8/10/2005. The previously registered Trademark on the acronym "ACIM" was canceled by the US Trademark Office on 10/25/2005.

Source: U.S. Patients, Trademarks, and Copyrights site:

http://www.uspto.gov/

...Ste4k 00:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious resource #1

Moving this to discussion

...Ste4k 00:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uncited Statements #7

Moving all of this to discussion until it can be sourced and cited.

[edit] Comparison to philosophical idealism and the New Thought Movement

the Course displays a strong orientation toward the concepts of mentalistic monism (see also philosophical monism), particularly Attributive Monism, philosophical idealism), and responsibility assumption, in its prescription that the mind and its thoughts are causally responsible for the everything in the physical world. the Course shares this outlook with the New Thought Movement, including Religious Science and Christian Science. In contrast to these belief systems, the Course focuses heavily on inner healing, as opposed to outer, physical healing, which is a consequence of the Course's complete disassociation of self-identity and limited physical bodies. Focus on outer healing over inner healing first would be similar to taking an aspirin to remove the symptoms of a far more serious problem underneath.[citation needed]

Some observers have noted the fact that the Course teachings have many things in common with the teachings of Christian Science, including the metaphysical appeal to a perfect, absolute, divine reality of which material existence is a distorted perception, or unhealed thought; the Idealist idea of healing or resurrection through improved thought and understanding; the subordination of imperfection as illusory; the reformulation of the Atonement; the reformulation of the Trinity; and the emphasis on God's love and forgiveness rather than eternal damnation.[citation needed]

One Urtext passage that was not included in the published version calls Christian Science "clearly incomplete," but praises one of the observations of Christian Science founder Mary Baker Eddy. This is Eddy's observation that while the Bible describes how Adam, while in the Garden of Eden was put into a deep sleep, nowhere does the Bible ever describe that Adam was awakened from that sleep. This same observation about Adam is also made within the pages of the Course.[citation needed]

...Ste4k 00:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research section #1

Moving this to discussion. It needs to be sourced (in the whole).

[edit] On the meaning of Jesus’ incarnation

A great deal of controversy has arisen regarding the Course's teaching that, “Strictly speaking.. (it) is impossible (for) the Word (to be made flesh).””[1], in reference to the Biblical quote from the book of John [2] about the relationship between God and the Christ. Some have taken this quote out of context to imply that the Course teaches that the historical Jesus was never fully human in the same sense as all other humans are. the Course does teach specifically that, “Jesus is the name of one who was a man [3]", however the Course also teaches that all humans are not truly the bodies that they seem to be, but that all bodies are essentially illusory. This includes Jesus’ body as well. Thus, the manner in which the Course differs sharply from traditional Christianity in its interpretation of all of the material world as being fundamentally illusory, is cause for some theological debate on the question of the nature of Jesus’ incarnation.

...Ste4k 00:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research Section #2

Moving this section to discussion. Needs to be sourced and cited.

[edit] Aspects of the Course's Spiritual Belief System

the Course professes respect for various other spiritual methods and paths that may be used to reach the same goals it pursues. the Course describes its main benefit as saving time toward the eventual remembering of the unity of the seemingly separated parts of Christ, and cites interpersonal relationships as its special mode for doing so. The theology of the Course is decidedly Monistic in its orientation.[citation needed]

One striking feature of the methodology laid out in the Course is the great attention paid to the nature of the faulty belief system of the ego. the Course goes to great length to evaluate the psychological underpinnings and dynamics that support this belief system, attempting to shift one’s focus away from seeming external causes to awareness of internal states, claiming that everything we see "outside" of us actually has an internal mental cause. Accordingly, our state of peace and happiness (or lack thereof) is not caused by the state of things around us, but by our mental reactions, evaluations and judgments about things. It then describes what must be accomplished in order for one to achieve release from, and afterwards to continue to avoid a return to this belief system. Such subjects as the root causes of anger, guilt, shame, projection, denial, and dishonesty are thoroughly addressed in the Course, as well as the best methodologies that one can use to overcome such perceptual limitations. It also spends considerable time discussing the special relationships of the ego (special as in... "I don’t have what another person has" and so it’s OK not to love them or, conversely, "Another person doesn’t have what I have" and so again it’s OK not to love them), and the Holy Spirit's equivalent transformative equivalent to this, the holy relationship.[citation needed]

...Ste4k 00:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research Section #3

This section alludes to a source. Instead of commenting on the source, it should cite and quote the source and lose the "review of a review".

[edit] Some negative reviews

Some conservative Christian reviewers have expressed concerns that the doctrines of the Course may incorporate some cultic tendencies. Citing the theological and philosophical differences between the Course and traditional Christian theology and philosophy, such apologists have sometimes labeled the Course as heretical, counterfeit, and as possibly even demonically inspired. [4] Some skeptical groups look askance at the material's origins in (so-called) channeling, allegedly emanating from Jesus. Some such reviewers hold that the Course's doctrines are subversive to the proper functioning of a rational society, as nowhere does the Course encourage its students to actively attempt to improve or change the world for the better, and instead the Course teaches that the material world is merely an illusion.[citation needed]

In The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power, Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad argue that the Course is not a path to liberation but an authoritarian cult.

...Ste4k 00:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research Section #4

Moving this section to discussion. It needs to be sourced and cited.

[edit] The Affliction of Separation

In the Course's cosmology, God the Father and Christ the Son are united in a single purpose, for God is understood as creating perfectly like Himself, sharing his whole Self with Creation, eternally and changelessly. Heaven is said to be omnipresent, but this cannot be realized without letting go of all misperception and judgement. Such cannot do the Son justice, for, according to the Course, to give is to receive, and who condemns another, seeing him as less than a Son of God Who creates only like Himself, is not spared the effect of the guilt. Who believes he can see another as capable of separating or distancing himself from God, must believe that he himself can likewise separate himself from God. Since sin and evil go against God, and going against God is impossible, the Course argues sin and evil must have never been possible. However, so long as we do not see that there are no orders or differences in sins or evils, we will will not look at our mistakes and ignorance, fearing they have separated us. If this were true, such mistakes would be unforgiveable, blameworthy, and not mere mistakes at all, but sins. Separation would render us as contradictions, according to the Course, for what goes against God is eternally at war and will never find peace. But, the Course emphasizes, contradictions are nothing at all, and none exist.[citation needed]

The Course claims that if we believe our reality lies somewhere between the extremes of Heaven and hell, it is only for our lack of recognition that changing the form of our thinking or or its circumstance never changes the content, for such an insane notion is the very same insane arrogance of the thought that we could have had the power to distance ourselves from God in any way.[citation needed]

...Ste4k 00:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research Section #5

Moving this section to discussion. It needs to be sourced and cited.

[edit] Atonement and Healing

According to the Course, Atonement is realized in the instant we allow sin to be forgiven, for such a thought at last recognizes the true sinless nature of the Son, at last doing him justice, seeing him truly. Again, to give is to receive. Atonement is the means by which the entire "reality" of sin is undone, for we see that we had never anything to fear, and we are left only with what must be true.[citation needed]

The Holy Spirit is understood as the Voice of God, whose purpose is healing, so long as healing is necessary to bring us into awareness of our exceptionless union with God and the Sonship (collective humanity), so we might share in His creation and perfection. The answer to the question, "What am I?" could be said to be love, communication, reason, or perhaps light simpliciter ... these are understood as synonymous. (cf. "Thou art That")[citation needed]

...Ste4k 00:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research Section #6

This section needs to be sourced and cited.

[edit] Common Terminological Misunderstandings

Within the terminology used by the Course, the term miracle still incorporates its original meaning, but additional connotations are added. These are roughly synonymous with those usually associated with the term love. As such, the book shifts its focus towards teaching various aspects of love and its presence in one’s life.[citation needed]

Within the terminology used by the Course, the term ego is roughly synonymous with the term self-concept. As such, the ego as described by the Course is something which is often misinformed or confused about itself, and which by definition requires correction.[citation needed]

One point of note regarding the Course standard phraseology is its nearly exclusive use of masculine pronouns. Nowhere in the Course is the existence of gender treated as anything more than one of the many different temporary aspects of what the Course refers to as 'The Separation'. On at least one occasion Schucman was known to have expressed some concern about this choice of pronoun phraseology within the Course.[citation needed]

...Ste4k 00:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research section #7

This section appears to be speaking or reviewing another book. The book is quoted, but the book is not cited. If memory serves correctly, the book being referenced here was written by the same author as the the Course. This entire section needs to be justified, cited, and sourced.

[edit] Introduction to "A Course in Miracles"

The introduction to A Course In Miracles briefly summarizes the Course. According to the Preface, it emphasizes the fundemental distinction that the Course draws between the real and unreal, truth and perception, and that in this proper discernment is the realization of the "peace of God."[citation needed]

"This is A Course in Miracles. It is a required course. Only the time you take it is voluntary. Free will does not mean that you can establish the curriculum. It means only that you can elect what you want to take at a given time. The course does not aim at teaching the meaning of love, for that is beyond what can be taught. It does aim, however, at removing the blocks to the awareness of love's presence, which is your natural inheritance. The opposite of love is fear, but what is all-encompassing can have no opposite. This course can therefore be summed up very simply in this way:[citation needed]

Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.

Herein lies the peace of God."

[citation needed]

...Ste4k 01:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research Section #8

This goes hand in hand with OR section listed above. These people need to be cited and quoted and the original research (essay) about them removed. The "Critical Review" section should actually cite some critical reviews that have been previously published rather than publishing this as a primary source by WP.


[edit] Some positive reviews

Popular commentators such as Oprah Winfrey and Marianne Williamson have praised the teachings of the Course as beneficial and helpful. In response to claims that the Course is a defeatist or disengaged philosophy preaching nonparticipation in the world, students of the Course point out that nowhere does the Course advise that one should drop out from society or alter one’s daily routines in any way. Admittedly the Course places primary emphasis on the development of one’s inner awareness first, before the development of any one particular external goal or cause. Still, the philosophy of the Course also stresses that by first securing a solid foundation in one’s life and a unified purpose, one is thereby enabled to then achieve far greater rewards in one's life. the Course teaches that such an inner foundation enables one to fulfill all of one’s spiritual and material needs with ease.[citation needed]

...Ste4k 01:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This source apparently goes with this section.

  • Williamson, Marianne (24 Apr 1996). A Return to Love. Perennial Currents. 0060927488.

...Ste4k 01:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research Section #9

This section is being moved to discussion. It needs to be sourced and cited.

[edit] Differences regarding Jesus' suffering

While the Course does not specifically state whether or not Jesus suffered during the crucifixion, it does consistently teach that the knowledge and awareness of God’s love is capable of removing all pain and suffering in every psychological and/ or physical circumstance. From this teaching it can be inferred that according to the teachings of the Course, one with the awareness that the Course claims that Jesus had, would not have truly suffered, even as he was rejected and crucified. This apparent teaching of the Course is in marked contrast to the Biblical teaching found primarily in the Epistles of the New Testament, that Jesus did indeed suffer greatly during the crucifixion, and that his suffering in this was somehow necessary in order to prevent God from justly punishing the rest of mankind, being some form of a substitutionary punishment.[citation needed]

...Ste4k 01:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self Published Resources #1

Moving these sources to discussion. All of these sources are written by the publisher of the book. If specific sections are quoted then they need to address the notability of this book, not be self-serving nor contentious, and discuss only the publisher itself. See WP:RS.

  • Foundation for Inner Peace (1992). A course in miracles. The Foundation. ISBN 0-9606388-8-1.
  • Miller, D. Patrick (Aug1997). Complete Story of the Course. FEARLESS BOOKS. ISBN 0-9656809-0-8.
  • Foundation for Inner Peace (1 Mar 1996). A Supplement to A Course in Miracles. Viking Adult. ISBN 0-670-86994-5.
  • Foundation for Inner Peace, Wapnick, Kenneth (1 Feb 1997). Concordance of 'A Course in Miracles'. Viking Adult. ISBN 0670869953.
  • Skutch, Robert (Mar1996). Journey Without Distance. Viking Books. 1-883360-02-1.
  • Wapnick, Kenneth (Apr1991). Absence from Felicity. Foundation for a Course in Miracles. 0-933291-08-6.

... Ste4k 01:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research Section #10

This huge essay on doctrine needs to be cited and sourced.

[edit] Theological differences

The teachings of the Course place little importance on theology, stating that "a universal theology is impossible, but a universal experience is not only possible but necessary." Still, a very definite, consistent, and unique theology can be derived from the teachings of the Course. The theology of the Course provides a radically different perspective regarding many common concepts.[citation needed]

Because of the Course's perspective on reality, separation, and forgiveness, the Course does not accept sin, death, or sacrifice as being real. the Course rejects the definition of sin as an evil act having unalterable consequences and necessarily deserving of punishment by God or by others. This is because under its cosmology sin exists only as an illusion or a mistake, and therefore the most logical response to it is to simply correct the mistake, rather than to give it more weight via punishment. the Course defines mistakes as mental misconceptions having no real (eternal) consequences beyond the need for correction. Accordingly, all acts of others are to be interpreted either as expressions of love, or as calls for love, and nothing more. [citation needed]

Death is both illusory and ultimately meaningless for the Course, because of its position that only by salvation, and not by death, do separated minds cease to believe in the illusory world of separation and return to unity in the Sonship. Sacrifice is similarly impossible for the Course because of the eternal wholeness of the Sonship. the Course thus rejects the more traditional Christian belief that Jesus's crucifixion was meant as a sacrificial proxy in payment for the sins of mankind. Instead the Course explains the crucifixion as a necessary part of the lesson of the resurrection. As such it is a part of an amazing demonstration of the invulnerability of the spirit and of love.[citation needed]

The Holy Trinity of most Christian denominations is present in the Course, but the definitions that the Course uses for the Son, and for the Holy Spirit are somewhat different from most traditional Christian definitions. The Son, or Christ, is the unity of all of God’s creation, rather than being synonymous with Jesus only, and thus encompasses all of God's children. The Holy Spirit is the Voice for God and the means given to the seemingly separated (yet in reality, united) minds of God's Sonship to first remember and then to return to their natural inheritance of unity with God. The Holy Spirit is the aspect of God the Creator that understands the world we live in. The Holy Spirit is aware of the perceptions of people, and is simultaneously aware of the knowledge of God (Heaven's version of perception). The Holy Spirit is the aspect of God which leads us back home to Heaven, as it sees clearly the way back home, which is where God would have us be.[citation needed]

The teachings of the Course about how the world will one day end (or the eschatology of the Course) differ significantly from most traditional Christian eschatologies. the Course makes only one prediction regarding the future. the Course predicts that the Atonement (when all seemingly separated minds have recognized their unity as Christ) will require millions of years to complete. In the Course's counterpart to the Biblical prediction of the Apocalypse as expressed in the book of Revelation, the Course teaches that the illusory material world will not be tumultuously destroyed by fire, famine, and pestilence, but instead that it “will simply cease to seem to be,” once it has fulfilled its true purpose of enabling the Atonement. It will then be gently replaced in our awareness by the real world of God's eternal love. Should one interpret the apocalyptic symbolism of the 'lamb' ruling over the 'beast' as portrayed in the book of Revelation, as the power of peace, gentleness and innocence, reigning over the powers of war, brutality, and sin, then this particular symbolism might be considered to be consistent with the teachings of the Course. [citation needed]

Regarding the question of reincarnation, although the Course does contain passages that would seem to imply the likelihood of the existence of reincarnation, nowhere does it unequivocally state it as fact. In comparison to Biblical statements about reincarnation, this is actually a less firm endorsement of it than some of those who adhere to a belief in reincarnation would claim can be found the Bible. These adherents to this belief in reincarnation point to the Biblical description of the origins of John the Baptist as found in the Gospel of Matthew, which states that "John is Elijah". These adherents to this belief assert that if this Biblical assertion is to be taken literally, then it can only mean that John the Baptist was the reincarnation of Elijah. (Most Christians do not accept this interpretation of this verse.) the Course neither directly supports, nor does it directly deny the possibility of reincarnation. Instead it attempts to focus one's energies on gaining a fuller awareness of the present moment, to the exclusion of concerns for the past or for the future.[citation needed]

...Ste4k 01:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research section #11

From "Practical Study and Lifestyle", this section appears to be citing the book itself or at least some version of the book, one or the other, and then original commentary being made on the quote. It needs to come instead from a reputible secondary source (i.e. a review...). Including it here until such a source can be found.

The preface of the Course advises that:

"(the Course) is not intended to become the basis for another cult. Its only purpose is to provide a way in which some people will be able to find their own Internal Teacher."

The book states that religion is best when it is practiced at the internal, personal level, as an act directly between a person and God, or another person. Accordingly, no central organization or authority exists within the Course that is fully analogous to the central authority structure found in most other spiritual belief systems. Neither does any system of formalized membership, or membership tracking exist amongst the majority of the students of the Course. [citation needed]

...Ste4k 01:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research Section #12

From "Practical Study and Lifestyle", this section appears to be citing the book itself or at least some version of the book, one or the other, and then original commentary being made on the quote. It needs to come instead from a reputible secondary source (i.e. a review...). Including it here until such a source can be found...

The teachings make no attempt to codify or structuralize any system of earthly spiritual authority. Instead the material stresses that true authority comes from within the individual who has come to see God truly. the Course teaches that setting up a spiritual authority from one person over another is inherently unnatural, and temporary at best. the Course's teachings state that:

"Freedom cannot be learned by tyranny of any kind, and the perfect equality of all God's Sons cannot be recognized through the dominion of one mind over another."

[citation needed]

...Ste4k 01:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research Section #13

From "Practical Study and Lifestyle", this section appears to be citing the book itself or at least some version of the book, one or the other, and then original commentary being made on the quote. It needs to come instead from a reputible secondary source (i.e. a review...). Including it here until such a source can be found...

The teachings of the Course also make it clear that anyone who would 'teach' the Course must also be able to 'learn' from each person he or she meets, because teaching and learning are understood as synonymous.[5] This egalitarian type of teaching is found consistently throughout the material and appears to contrast sharply with most contemporary interpretations of the Christian Bible. Compared to most other young spiritual movements, the teachings of the Course are relatively uncontroversial.

...Ste4k 01:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uncited statements #8

From the thesis section, the following statement needs to be sourced and cited before inclusion.

It is asserted the actual origin was dictation from a divine source through a form of divine inspiration.

...Ste4k 01:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uncited statement #9

The introductory thesis, besides being controversial, is uncited and unsourced. I am moving it to discussion, and replacing it with a statement that is provided by a reputible secondary source:

A Course in Miracles (sometimes referred to as ACIM or simply The Course) is a book of "spiritual psychotherapy" or spiritual transformation that has spawned a religious movement.

...Ste4k 01:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research Section #14

This statement is redundant about the number of copies sold, and needs to be sourced and cited before inclusion. Moving it here to discussion.

[edit] History

Over 1.5 million copies of the Course are said to have have been distributed since its release. It is not associated with any one centralized church or body, but numerous groups and organizations have emerged that study the Course or are centered on or significantly influenced by it. Those may meet in person or have an Internet presence. Some derivative works have been written, notably by the books by Marianne Williamson.[citation needed]

...Ste4k 01:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research Section #15

If most theologians agree about any of this then they need to be referenced as sources, and cited. Moving this section to discussion.

Most theologians agree that some of the most radical spiritual principles first introduced by the historical Jesus include:

  • Jesus' teaching about radical forgiveness.
  • Jesus' radical reformulation of the old Jewish law to highlight the need for 'brotherly love' to mean neighbor-as-self.
  • Jesus' teaching regarding the parental relationship between all men and "God the Father".

Despite these three radical departures made in Jesus’ teachings from all prior religions, many Christians have noted that the Bible provides precious few details about what exactly was meant by the teaching of these three new spiritual principles. Some passages in the Bible regarding these principles appear to be slightly inconsistent with other Biblical passages regarding these same principles. For example: Jesus, teaching in the 'Lord's Prayer' about forgiveness, says, "God forgives our trespasses just as we forgive (the trespasses of) those who trespass against us." This seems to be slightly inconsistent with other Biblical passages describing how we are forgiven only through "Christ's blood, even the forgiveness of sins[6]".[original research?]

...Ste4k 01:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research section #16

Whether for some, or a few, or ten million, the following needs to be sourced and cited.

[edit] On forgiveness, brotherly love, and the 'fatherhood' of God

For some, the teachings of the Course are believed to clarify many of these types of apparent Biblical inconsistencies and shortcomings. Teachings regarding the exact mechanics of the spiritual principle of forgiveness are central to the the Course teachings. Regarding forgiveness, the Course goes into far greater detail, providing far more instruction regarding the logic of, the purpose for, and the practical application of this principle, than does the Christian Bible. Many students of the Course who are (or have been) involved in traditional Christian churches, and who have faithfully studied the Course for a significant length of time, report their sense that the teachings of the Course on forgiveness have finally clarified for them, in very practical ways, how forgiveness can now be fully realized in their daily lives.[citation needed]

...Ste4k 01:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uncited statements #10

The following appear to be original research based on reading the book(s). They need to come from a reputible resource, quoted, and cited.

the Course does radically reinterpret the crucifixion and the resurrection to be an example of how the power and example of Christ's forgiveness was so great that ultimately even the greatest of physical assaults could not hold or affect him [7]. Still, nowhere does the Course teach that a 'Savior' is unnecessary for salvation. In fact, the need for a 'Savior' is stressed consistently throughout the Course. According to the Course, only full recognition of the exceptionless presence of the sinlessness of Christ, the 'Savior', in the Sonship is required for salvation [8].


...Ste4k 02:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source reliability and opinion

Moving this section and it's sources to discussion. Evidently Robert here appears on televsion. How often, or whether that still happens is really irrelelevent. The actual statement is quoted from a term paper of a student at University of Virginia for Spring Term, 2000. She is quoting Robert directly. I don't really know if this statement deserves a section for itself, but I am moving it here for discussion.

[edit] On the role of the Savior

Another big difference between The Course and The Bible is that The Course teaches that Jesus is not the only savior. According to The Course, "We don't need a savior. Salvation is nothing more than right-mindedness."We do not need a savior. Salvation is nothing more than right mindedness. We are the source of our own salvation." This belief obviously strays greatly from what Christianity teaches.."[9][10]


...Ste4k 02:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unreliable source quoting reliable source in "Savior" section

Moving this section and it's sources to discussion. Evidently Robert here appears on televsion. How often, or whether that still happens is really irrelelevent. The actual statement is quoted from a term paper of a student at University of Virginia for Spring Term, 2000. She is quoting Robert directly. I don't really know if this statement deserves a section for itself, but I am moving it here for discussion.

[edit] On the role of the Savior

Another big difference between The Course and The Bible is that The Course teaches that Jesus is not the only savior. According to The Course, "We don't need a savior. Salvation is nothing more than right-mindedness."We do not need a savior. Salvation is nothing more than right mindedness. We are the source of our own salvation." This belief obviously strays greatly from what Christianity teaches.."

...Ste4k 02:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research Section #17

From "Practical Study and Lifestyle", this section appears to be original commentary being made on the book. It needs to come instead from a reputible secondary source (i.e. a review...). Including it here until such a source can be found...

the Course material also advises that formality in religion is only useful if it has a clear, practical purpose. The truest type of church or formal institution for the Course is more of an inner habit of reverence for the presence of God, seen in everyone, rather than any kind of sanctified external physical building or human organization. [citation needed]

...Ste4k 02:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research Section #18

The following from section "Practical Study and Lifestyle" needs to be sourced and cited before inclusion.

the Course places no specific limits on the methods by which it may be learned or taught, emphasizing that all spiritual and non-spiritual paths alike must eventually lead to the same awakening. However, according to the Course, some paths will take far longer than others, and the purpose of the Course is to minimize the time this takes. Accordingly, the Course students are free to seek out whichever learning-teaching format works best for them. [citation needed]

...Ste4k 02:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research section #19

The following from section "Practical Study and Lifestyle" needs to be sourced and cited before inclusion.

Currently, the majority of the students of the Course appear to prefer to study the Course in an informal setting, ranging from the individual the Course student who may make no effort to contact any other students of the Course, to the informal the Course study group member, who may join a small local study group that may meet on a weekly basis.[citation needed]

...Ste4k 02:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research section #20

The following from section "Practical Study and Lifestyle" needs to be sourced and cited before inclusion.

Regardless of the fact that, to date, these the Course church-like organizations appear to attract only a minority of the Course students, their impact on the larger body of the Course students has often been disproportionate to their size. These organizations often serve as a means by which the students of the Course might gather together with one another, where this wouldn't otherwise be practical.[citation needed]

...Ste4k 02:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research section #21

Moving this section to discussion. These other organizations need to be spoken about from a neutral third party source, (i.e. a reputible secondary source). If they have published reviews that make the following statements, then those need to be sourced and cited before inclusion. The entire statement might have come from some source that could be cited. If you know, then discuss.

[edit] Practical Study and Lifestyle

At least two organizations are known to present the teachings of the Course in an environment that appears to be similar in some ways to a more traditional Christian church setting. These organizations provide traditional style gathering places for weekly Sunday morning services, a pastoral staff, ordained ministers, seminary training, and many of the other institutional systems and practices that are normally associated with more traditional Christian churches. These are the Community Miracles Center, situated in the Castro district of San Francisco, California, and the Pathways of Light Center in Kiel, Wisconsin. For more information regarding these organizations, please refer to the external links section below.

...Ste4k 02:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable External Link #1

This external link is a private Yahoo account page owned by "Doug Thompson". Is Doug Thompson a notable academic in some field? Moving this to discussion.

...Ste4k 03:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong question. The site contains a number of downloads. Some or all of these may be reliable sources. JChap (talk • contribs) 03:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I am familiar with many ACIM sites. I think the purpose of these external links should not necessarily be thought of as reference sources but as places a reader new to ACIM can be directed for additional information. I am familiar with this site and recommend that it be kept.--Who123 04:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable External Link #2

Moving this to discussion. This external link is a pointer to a term paper written by a student For Soc 452: Sociology of Religious Behavior at University of Virginia in the Spring Term of 2000 named Holly Whittaker. It is not the official opinion of the U of V as listed, and if Holly Whittaker is regarded as a significant expert in her area by independent sources, then it could be included. Anyone know if Holly has published a significant or well-known academic work, or is regarded as an important figure by those in the same field?

...Ste4k 03:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an undergraduate term paper. The paper itself is not a source but it lists a number of sources that should be acceptable for Wikipedia. I strongly suggest reading this. JChap (talk • contribs) 03:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable External Link #3

Moving this link to discussion. This link is to a private user account named "acim" at the ISP att.net. Any reason why this private anonymous user's original works should be included in the encyclopedia?

...Ste4k 03:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a site containing the text and should be kept. JChap (talk • contribs) 02:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Agree, should be kept.--Who123 04:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable External Link #4

Moving this link to discussion. According to Internet registrar records the following link is owned by an editor of this article (i.e. one of the original editors). Is there any reason to include this editors own web site as an external link in this article?

...Ste4k 03:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • It contains useful information (the text). We should keep it. JChap (talk • contribs) 02:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree, should be kept.--Who123 04:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned External Link #1

Moving this external link for discussion. The following link was found in the external links section. It is apparently one of the official sites but an internal link. It might have been misplaced for some reason as a resource. Being the publisher of this book, though, makes this a primary resource and the information about translations has already been mentioned by a reliable secondary resource, "Publishers Weekly".

I will be placing (according to WP:EL) the official sites in the external links, including this site.

...Ste4k 04:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • This is a primary source. It may be cited for basic information, including sales. JChap (talk • contribs) 02:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree, should be kept.--Who123 04:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable External Link #5

According to the guidelines on external links, sites that contain factually inaccurate material or unverified original research (pt 2) and blog sites should be avoided (pt 9), and I am moving this link to discussion. If there is any reason to find exception to the guidelines, feel free to discuss that here.

...Ste4k 04:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a discussion board, not a reliable source. JChap (talk • contribs) 02:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that this is not a reference source. It does contain a good deal of information about ACIM and a place for a reader to ask questions. It should be kept.--Who123 04:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:EL is a guide, not a policy. In particular note: "there are exceptions, such as in cases where the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or where the website is of a particularly high standard." I think this site is an exception and is useful to the reader.--Who123 16:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable External Link #6

This external link is being moved to discussion. According to the guidelines, social networking sites and bookstore sites should be avoided. (see WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided).

  • Circle of Atonement - commentaries, user forums, and an online bookstore. The materials are written by Robert Perry, Allen Watson.

...Ste4k 04:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • She's right. This isn't a reliable source. JChap (talk • contribs) 02:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think this site should be kept for the reader. The books here may be useful sources. In the ACIM community Robert Perry is considered mainsteam and unbiased.--Who123 04:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:EL is a guide, not a policy. In particular note: "there are exceptions, such as in cases where the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or where the website is of a particularly high standard." I think this site is an exception and is useful to the reader.--Who123 16:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • This article isn't about, nor closely related to the website itself. We do not have any content speaking about Alexa ratings, nor the number of user's that visit the A Course in Miracles Web Site daily. It would be off topic, completely. Do you agree? Ste4k 17:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead Link?

Just noting that the external link:

is currently dead. We should keep an eye on it over the next week or so to see if it's only a temporary condition. Ste4k 05:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The link connected for me. However, it is not a reliable source, but an anti-Semitic rant and should not be included in the article. JChap (talk • contribs) 02:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)ß
It connected for me, as well, this morning. I didn't spend much time checking the content though, only connectivity. Ste4k 17:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
JChap, I agree with you about this link. Perhaps we can put this one link up for a vote and leave the others for now? I vote to remove.--Who123 11:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/_/c/Talk%7EA_Course_in_Miracles_temp_567c.html"